DIALOGUE CANADA
DIALOGUE CANADA
De-Amalgamation campaign in 42 cities of Québec, 2004
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE BREACH
By Viateur BergeronTranslated by Mark FarrenSubsequent to the forced amalgamation in 2002 of 212 Québec municipalities into 42 cities the Québec Liberal Party promised citizens -- if elected -- the right to choose their city. In the spring of 2004 the Liberal Government launched a large democratic operation concerning the maintaining versus the de-amalgamating of the 42 new cities. To this end a specific law was adopted -- and modifications made to the law on referendums and to the rules governing the consultation process - consisting of two consultative phases. The first phase concerned the signature of registers in order to request a referendum concerning the de-amalgamation of a newly amalgamated city. If the number of signatures required was attained (10% of registered voters) then the second phase commenced: a binding referendum. Citizens had to respect specific rules for expressing their opinion on the upcoming referendum. The overall operation was under the responsibility of the Director general of Élections Québec (DGE).
The decreed rules governing the conducting of this novel operation of de-amalgamating 42 cities were confusing and poorly publicized -- very few people knew them. These rules introduced in 2004 -- in the name of transparency and equity - surprising and were unacceptable restrictions, particularly so in light of the process having been touted as an exercise in democracy. What follows is an account of my adventures stemming from my personal efforts in favor of maintaining the territorial integrity of the new city of Gatineau. This account is an illustration of the implementation of rules affecting millions of persons.
On 27 April 2004, I participated in a meeting of ("Regroupement"), a citizens' group for the maintenance of the territorial integrity of Gatineau. Among other things, discussions dealt with the interpretation of the famous 35% rule permitting a given sector to de-amalgamate and to become a distinct municipal entity -- subsequent to a referendum. Some hold the view that 35% of electors must vote in order for the result of the referendum be binding - and that a majority of those voting be in favor of de-amalgamation of that sector. However, one member of Gatineau City Council claims that firstly, the number of yes votes (in favor of de-amalgamation) must be superior to no votes; and that secondly, the number of yes votes must be equal to or greater than 35% of registered voters. In summary, confusion reigns among those present in the face of these irreconcilable interpretations. It is agreed that this question should be studied further - and that the public be informed of the applicable rules.
The management of the campaign to come is discussed at length. The directors of Regroupement request that the largest possible number of persons write texts and send them to the media, as well to their own friends. All of this goes without saying. Moreover, those in authority at Regroupement have met with representatives of the Director general of Élections Québec (DGE) and advise us that no paper work is required, notably that we need not register in order to participate in the campaign and that there are no spending limits during the first phase which is dedicated to the campaign for or against the signing of the registers.
In all good faith -- and with a view toward informing fellow citizens on these important questions for the community -- I decide to conduct some research and related verifications to publish a text presenting the rules to be followed during a referendum, enabling a sector to de-amalgamate itself from the City of Gatineau. My text presents concrete examples applicable to each of the 5 sectors in light of their respective number of registered voters - which is the numerical foundation on which the so called 35% rule is based. The imperative for diffusing this information rapidly becomes apparent to me - particularly since the above requirements came as a complete surprise to most close followers familiar with the debates on de-amalgamation, myself included.
I proceed to prepare my own text on my personal computer. It is dated 5 May 2004 and it was sent to the regional media. The text was also distributed from my own computer via fax and E-mail to hundreds of persons that I know requesting them in turn to forward it to others. No media outlet published my two-page text. Meanwhile many persons follow up on my request and send the text to their contacts and acquaintances. I also distribute my text to persons I meet in public. Text titled: GATINEAU: DE-AMALGAMATION IMPOSSIBLE, COSTLY AND DISAPPOINTING.
(This text was transmitted to DGE by a complainant whose identity is unknown to me. This complaint, of which I was informed on 19 May 2004, was to become a source of problems and annoying frustrations pushing me to the brink of abandoning my engagement in the campaign in favor of maintaining the territorial integrity of the city of Gatineau).On Sunday 9 May 2004 a lady telephones me at home. She warmly invites me to sign the register in order to set in motion the referendum process. Given my polite refusal she insists and -- with an aim to convince me - tells me that if I do not sign the register I will lose my right to vote during the referendum. It is then my turn to explain to her that she has it all wrong, and that all voters registered on the electoral list in the Hull sector will have the right to vote in the event that a referendum is held subsequent to the attainment of the number of signatures required on the register. This peculiar incident spurs me to prepare an additional text, dated 11 May and titled: DE-AMALGAMATION OF GATINEAU, THE REGISTER, BOTH A TRICK…AND A TRAP. I proceed to distribute this new text in the same manner and with the same means as the previous one. In response to the text sent to regional media two journalists comment that my text is too long. In the case of the English-speaking journalist, he preferred a shorter version in English. I subsequently rework my text to shorten the French version - and I have an English version prepared with the assistance of an Anglophone colleague. This re-drafted bilingual text is dated 14 may and sent to the media only. The French text is published in the FORUM page of Le Droit on 17 May, 2004. To my knowledge the English version of the text was not published.
On 17 May 2004 I met with Minister Benoît Pelletier, concerning diverse matters including two questions related to the de-amalgamation of new cities and in particular the city of Gatineau. I submit to him that in my opinion it is unacceptable that the information services in English do not respect the normal rules, notably on two points: 1)- the experts' report on the consequences of de-amalgamation - paid for by the government of Québec - has not been translated into English; and 2)- I have found no information in English on the web site of the department of Municipal Affairs, Sport and Leisure. I take the opportunity to give him a text titled: DE-AMALGAMATION: SUGGESTION TO PERSONS IN AUTHORITY. This text was rendered public with the agreement of Minister Benoît Pelletier, and it was sent to some personal contacts and to regional media.
On 19 May 2004 around noon I receive a telephone call from an inspector from the office of the DGE. He advises me that I have committed a punishable offence by publishing and distributing a text (the first text, dated 5 May 2004) without being registered as an interested person at the DGE. I am liable to criminal prosecution and a fine. I am flabbergasted and I ask him to explain on what basis the infraction in question is founded - given that I had previously written and distributed texts in similar fashion during elections and earlier referendums. He replies that the rules have changed -- and after re-verifying my identity, and that the text he has in his possession is indeed mine -- he simply confirms that I have committed a punishable offence. I cannot believe this person is an inspector of DGE. I request that he send to me by fax the legal texts on which he bases the accusations in question. I seriously entertain the notion that all this is the work of a prankster trying to trick me into abandoning my campaign.
At 1 :30 PM on 19 May 2004 I receive a nine-page fax from the office of the DGE, duly signed and containing an extract from the RULES GOVERNING CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES MADE DURING THE CONSULTATION ON THE MUNICIPAL TERRITORIAL REORGANIZATION, namely articles 1-3, 12-24, 57-60. There is no doubt that I am legally cornered by the interpretation of a rule of which I was unaware and of which I saw no indication on the web sites either of the DGE or of the Department of Municipal Affairs, Sport and Leisure - both of which I had previously visited on several occasions. I decide to telephone the DGE and I arrange to speak to someone other than the above inspector -- firstly to assure myself that the person in question actually is an inspector at the DGE, and secondly in order to verify his interpretation of the regulation in question. The DGE official confirms that I have indeed committed an infraction. In the face of my protestations she tells me that if I promise to stop sending texts as of 4:00 PM the current date 19 May 2004 there would be no prosecution - and that the DGE's earlier threat of prosecution would be considered as a warning. I so promise, for the sake of peace, and in any case the first phase of the process - the signature of the registers - was coming to an end the following day 20 May 2004. However, having no intention whatsoever of interrupting my personal campaign in favor of maintaining the territorial integrity of the city of Gatineau I request to be informed about my rights effective 21 May, i.e. during the second phase - that of the referendum - if the number of signatures registered so warrant. The DGE official replies by referring me to her colleague responsible for phase two -- to whom I should provide my name.
On 20 May 2004 around 9:00 AM I receive a call from a DGE lawyer at the Direction of investigations, legislation and special projects. He informs me that my case has been discussed and that the DGE is prepared to permit me to retroactively regularize my situation - on condition that I complete the required paper work before 5:00 PM of the current date. In order to reassure me, the DGE lawyer tells me that he will confirm our conversation in writing before noon of the current date. I reply that if I receive the documents on time I plan to register before noon. Around 10:30 I receive by fax the LETTER FROM THE LAWYER AND FORM TO BE COMPLETED. After several telephone calls to the office of the DGE, I immediately complete and send the form in question. Before noon I am registered and my situation regularized. Wanting to assure myself that everything is complete and satisfactory I communicate with a DGE official from the verification Service to obtain the forms and other information concerning the expenses that the DGE requires that I report. I receive by fax the same day 20 May the required form. On 21 May 2004 I complete the REPORT, which I transmit to DGE by both fax and regular mail.
A few days later I receive a LETTER DATED 20 MAY indicating the route to follow if I desire to continue my campaign for the territorial integrity of the city of Gatineau. This letter replied to questions raised on 20 May in the course of numerous communications between myself and personnel of the DGE office. After examining the form to act as a "Non-affiliated Person," and having considered all of the associated procedures, I decide that the simplest solution consists of registering me as a member of the Hull sector NO Committee against De-amalgamation. On 1 June 2004 I sign the REQUIRED FORM to become a member of the Hull sector NO Committee against De-Amalgamation. This signature submits me to a highly restrictive commitment of obedience, which greatly surpassed what I believed to be necessary. Basically I regretted not having chosen to register myself as a "Non-affiliated Person," but I found it difficult thinking of myself as a "Non-affiliated Person" -- having already been an active member of the Committee for maintaining the territorial integrity of the city of Gatineau. It was time to move quickly, the referendum was set for 20 June, there was no time for beating around the bush over my participation form in a campaign that meant so much to me - given that I had been promoting since 1990 the amalgamation of the five cities ultimately amalgamated in 2002.
Despite the restrictive regulations I decide to write a text concerning exclusively the sector Hull, given that the No Committee is obliged to limit its campaign within the boundaries of the former city of Hull -- and its members are subject to the same constraints. For all practical purposes all advertising in newspapers distributed other than within the boundaries of Hull are prohibited and illegal. Evidently all publicity on television and radio is prohibited and illegal. As in phase one, citizens may submit texts to the media free of charge - but may not pay in order to have texts published. I therefore choose to use the route of the media. Subsequent to a discussion of my text and some revisions, Yvon Sabourin, one of the pillars of the No Committee agrees to co-sign a text with me titled: HULL REFERENDUM: CONSEQUENCES of a YES or of a NO -- which is transmitted to local media. The newspaper Le Droit publishes it on 8 June 2004 in the column, THE MUNICIPAL REFERENDUM, under the title THE CONSEQUENCES.
In Hull several persons are confident and happy at the prospect of recovering their former city despite "THE CONSEQUENCES" which many people refuse to believe. Others fear that de-amalgamation will not happen and that citizens will feel cheated despite winning a majority in favor of de-amalgamation because of the 35% rule -- which requires that the total votes in favor of de-amalgamation be equal or superior to 35% of registered voters. This situation incites me to prepare a new text which I submit to the official agent and to the authorities of the Hull NO Committee one week before the referendum, i.e. Sunday 13 June 2004. The same day I call the No Committee. The reply is to the effect that the directors will read my text and discuss among themselves before advising me of their answer - without mention of when they might actually respond. I call back and indicate that time is short, but was obliged to keep on waiting… On Wednesday afternoon 16 June I go to meet the No Committee -- and after a long discussion on the opportunity to publish the text in question - my text receives the green light. Finally on 17 June I fax and E-mail my text to persons whose address I know to be situated in Hull - since I do not have the right to campaign outside of the boundaries of the former city of Hull, even with the agreement of the official agent -- (see text titled: THE VICTORY OF THE NO, POSSIBLE AND IMPORTANT). Finally I had to prepare for the official agent a report of my expenses -- which I estimated at $25. The agent reimbursed my expenses by cheque, in compliance with the regulations. I offered to make a gift of $25 to the NO Committee, but I never received a response to my offer, nor the requested details concerning how to make the proposed donation.
What should we conclude from this account of my political and community activities? How should we judge the imposed rules which restrict the diffusion of opinions and options during public consultations, elections and referendums? I believe it preferable for you the readers to draw your own conclusions.
Gatineau, 5 January 2005
Viateur Bergeron, lawyer-referee-mediator
167, rue Notre-Dame-de-l'Ile,
Gatineau (Québec)
J8X 3T3
telephone : (819) 770-7928
fax: (819) 7701424
bergeron.gaudreau@qc.aira.com OR vberger@uottawa.caNote: The DOCUMENTS mentioned in the above text WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS are available upon request. They consist of an appendix of 33 pages in letter-size format. The full document can be sent via fax without charge - or by regular mail upon payment of photocopying and mailing expenses. These documents constitute the written proof confirming my affirmations in the above text.
